You do realize that "moral" and "morale" are completely different things, right?

cause we know evil exists , like some finding happiness in tortuing others , or a country harvesting organs from its citizens enslaved in camps, or a group of crazies attacking people cause they support the president

Evil and good are social constructs. Even some of the universally evil acts (such as killing others) are forgivable in the proper circumstance. Law and chaos are no less social in their nature. So to say evil exists, it is only because we, as a global society, have deemed that certain acts are evil. At one time, slavery was viewed positively in a large part of the world. It was not in any way evil to the majority of society. People can find justification for almost anything. Some things done today could be seen as evil, mega corporations exploiting people psychologically and instituting planned obsolescence to keep consumers returning. Copyrights being extended till nearly infinity because someone has to money to buy the law.

we gave a word a meaning and that meaning exists , i cant see how this is social construct anymore than anything else

I could say that I do it just the same as people who thinks I am evil and fight against me.

Since we're doing ad hoc hypotheses, let's assume a great thinker comes around preaching that people with aquiline noses are a breed of the devil and should be killed on the spot and for some reason 99.999% of global society accepts it because the great thinker had some great moments in the past. Are you seriously trying to tell me that it would be morally wrong, or in other words "evil" for me to try to save people with aquiline noses because... majority decided for it to be so?

It could eventually become that way. These kind of things don't happen quickly. But absolutely it could eventually become so. Especially if good reasoning were given for it. Think of how many things we believe to be true without knowing the truth behind it first, from birth. Eventually, we usually learn the reasons.

But let's say that thinker convinced society that Aquiline-nosed people were spreaders of a deadly disease, and that letting them live would be a detriment to society. He could prove it. Then one day, they no longer spread the disease. But society would still not trust them because they had forgotten WHY they were bad, but just knew that they WERE bad. I only use that example because of our already socially crafted social moral structure. You need good reasons to convince people to do things, but had they been taught these things from the outset, there would be no justification necessary.

OK I see where you are coming from and I don't want to push it much further since we would undoubtedly hit the muddy, metaphysical waters.

But, knowing what we as a global society know now, don't you think that we are indeed in the right by condemning slavery now, and were, as a society, in the wrong when slavery was considered to be morally acceptable practice?

Don't you think that we, as a society, are indeed >inherently< in the moral high ground now, and would be even if for some reason open slavery returned in, say, a hundred years and everyone accepted it?

No.

What you're arguing for is the existence of objective morality, and incidentally suggesting that your morality aligns with it. This is the problem people often have on moral issues, claiming that their position is not merely the right one, but objectively the right one. It's a flawed argument when morality is inherently subjective.

People can argue whether certain actions align with a particular "ultimate goal", but the goal itself is always subjective. Maybe one thinks morality should have humans all working together, or that morality is based on harm, or we should look at what maximizes population growth, or personal happiness, or financial stability. We can talk about how well X leads to Y, but not whether X or Y are "Good" or "Evil".

The same thing happens in political discussions, as people support this policy while opposing that one, and can't seem to grasp how anyone could disagree with them. It's because we all have different visions of an ideal country, and thus a policy that leads us closer to one goal will actually lead us away from another.

Imagine two people get in a car to go somewhere. One says they should go left at the light, and the other insists they obviously must go right. They argue and yell, incredulous that the other can't see how WRONG they obviously are. What they don't realize is that one is heading to the supermarket, which means going left, and the other wants to go to the post office, which necessitates going right.

Different visions follow different paths and because we all have different definitions of what is moral, we can have people unable to even agree on whether a specific thing is good or evil, like abortion. It may be that a moral code that prioritizes freedom may label abortion good, while a moral code that prioritizes life may label it evil. Abortion is neither good nor evil, but it will have a different moral label under different priorities, like everything else. And those moral codes, those priorities, are all subjective.

Discussions of morality, of social issues, of civil "rights", are all ultimately about trying to convince others to sign on to our particular moral definitions. Any position being popular or unpopular in no way makes it right or wrong, and certainly doesn't make it objectively true. It's simply about what argument is more persuasive, which resonates more with more people.

Muddying the waters of all this are people strongly influenced (manipulated) towards a certain position on something by "authorities", like holy men or politicians, even though those positions may actually contradict their own personal code. So it can be hard at times to discuss an issue with someone when they may unknowingly be advocating a position that was "fed" them, and are maintaining with cognitive dissonance.

yea like that time i discovered this artist being searched by a police for the rape of a minor girl and from a moral standpoint i could not enjoy his music anymore, which btw worked great with my tai chi work-out ...... in the end i belief this was the first step into defining how much of said faith i've put in others....

or like those hero movies where a dad goes ' all the way ' to rescue his family

Yes, I do.

to me evil is hate, I don't fight it but hope people see other peoples kindness and try it for themselves.

Evil is often hidden underneath kindness.

Is it evil to hate those who have committed heinous acts?

going to have to completely disagree with that 'definition'.

Expanding on my definition of morality from the previous page (hopefully I don't have to explain it each time)

Let's say you are the parents of a child that was raped, tortured, and murdered in a most heinous ways, The vile culprit is caught, sentenced to death. But through appeals and other obstacles 30 years of hard time goes by before the death sentence can be implemented. The perpetrator in that 30 years becomes a very different person, a "good" person as far as anyone knows. But regardless the execution will happen, and the perpetrator welcomes it, deeply repentant of their evil.

In version 1, the parents hate the perpetrator till the very end and beyond.

In V2, the parents forgive the perpetrator and even visit them in prison, starting to think of them as their own child even. Or just forgives them anyway, either way you like. This has bases in reality too, this kind of thing has roughly happened.

I say according to my definition of morality, V2 is much more moral. One could even argue V1 is a little immoral. Why? The issue is not about the perpetrator. The issue is not judgement upon the perpetrator, I'd say the same even if the perpetrator was unrepentant till the end.

The morality in question here is the parents. If they were consumed by hate for the rest of their lives, it would damage their complexity, their sentience, it would poison them deep inside. It's in forgiveness that they attain morality. Now don't confuse forgiveness with no punishment. If we could really know for absolute sure that the perpetrator WAS the perpetrator, then death penalty makes sense. If they seemed to have reformed, I'd worry the reform was fake. I'd still be for killing the perpetrator,(well with apparent reformation, it would depend on how well we could ascertain its genuineness) and for the parents forgiving the perpetrator.

The "justice" would be in making sure a evil being is stopped forever from committing more vile acts and a warning to others who would do such vile things.

The morality would be in not letting hate dictate your mind.

That's why in stories where there's a villain that needs to be stopped and the only way is to kill them. I say kill them, just don't let the people who they wronged do the killing if it can be helped.

No.
The cognizance of morality requires a mind able to conceptualize the fundamental symbolic semantics. Humans are the only beings known to be able to do this, so to speak of evil crocodiles or lions is a category mistake; they are literally amoral because they are incapable of such reflection.
(The whole point of, for instance, RL Stevenson's The Strange Case of Doctor Jeckyll & Mister Hyde (1886) is to make this point.)

As a scientist I acknowledge that pseudo-science is always a danger. (Aristotle famously wrote about the educated elite and their use of rhetoric —— the study of persuasive oratory —— to convincingly argue something that was not true: sophistry, from the Classical Greek ΣΌΦΟΣ denoting the perversion of knowledge and connoting cunning.)

I would remind you that there is still (despite its recent deprecation by Postmodern theory) objective truth.

Humans, being the recent evolutionary descendants of lemur-like mammals a few million years ago, who lived in small groups and thus have an inbuilt moral code (except those few outliers that we regard as antisocial and the related spectrum of sociopathic disorders —— incidentally now referred to in psychiatry as criminal and no longer as "abnormal", since normal is closer to a statistical metric than a median value for any given social construct.) Just look at how people have behaved in the last year to find overwhelming evidence of kindness to strangers.

So what you are describing is more a political morality (literally the proclivities of the many) and not a personal one.*

This is why there has only ever been one universal law, first postulated by Immanuel Kant on the eighteen century, and subsequently referred to as the imperative: human beings are never to be used as a means to any other end, even the well-being of many other humans.

This imperative is still valid.

Invoking Thomas Aquinas
That said, I would happily argue that some acts are beyond civilized tolerance, like deliberate evil acts of wilful cruelty to innocent bystanders for the enjoyment of the perpetrator. (I am deliberately using an extreme example to make the point; I'm well aware that few phenomena are so black-and-white in human affairs, hence the rich history of jurisprudence. :)
In such an instance I would have no hesitancy to surmise, should I be called to volunteer on a jury, that the perpetrator (proven guilty, of course) had forfeited their humanity (and consequently their right to protection through the categorical imperative). This is literally de-humanizing them; or, rather, completing the paperwork on their actions and concluding their fate.

Of course this is exactly the slippery slope that politicians use to justify war. (But some wars must be fought, too.)

Interestingly, Ruth Ginsburg was of the opinion that the political mess that has resulted from the US Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade was more because of the ham-fisted over-reach of the court than the conflict of underlying morality.

In other words, because the court adjudicated that not only that the Texan law under review was unconstitutional, but, further, that any law against abortion was, this created waves of protest that are still reverberating around the political arena a half-century later. She believed that had the court merely struck down the Texan law, then the legal-political process would have worked out what society really wanted, rather than have an elite group of lawyers decide for them.
This is supported by the fact that pretty much everywhere else in the world there is some (but certainly not uniform) allowance for abortion —— even, most recently, Argentina, the home of Pope Francis (who argued against it) and Ireland before there —— without the continuing acrimony evidenced in the USA. So, according to this late, feted, progressive jurist, the problem is not a continuing moral argument between the extremists (they will always argue) it is instead the fact that an unelected body made a unilateral decision that potentially reaches every person.
(The USA is almost unique in the breadth of its democracy; every public office is potentially an elected office, from dog catchers to police chiefs, so that the social contract is re-energized with every election. What the Supreme Court did in 1973 has caused the ongoing political fall-out, not the decision itself; now other activists see a way to "make an end-run around democracy" and have their less-than popular beliefs codified into law through government fiat, rather than public acclimation.)

This is a very good summary.
For version 1, little explication is required; just eliminate the threat of recidivism to society with little lost in the process (kill or imprison forever).
For version 2, I would be content (if that is even appropriate under the circumstances) with the parents' forgiveness, the perpetrator's shrift, and the society's justice (including the death penalty, since the law must strive to reduce any perceived incentive to criminal behaviour with absolute punishments). Thus, the parents would be sad to see yet more violence; the perpetrator would welcome punishment; and the society would promulgate the absolute and unqualified penalty for capital crimes (i.e., transgressing Kant's imperative in the most extreme manner). Very eloquent and perfectly apt!

________
* This is why libertarian policies are superior to socialist policies, since socialism seeks to treat every member of a group (a very arbitrary political calculus) with the attributes ascribed to that group, whereas libertarian policies devolve responsibility to each individual and (using John Stuart Mill's harm principle) that each individual cannot control any other. It is politics that provides an individual, acting on behalf of their society, with a power over another; this power is dangerous (like a motor vehicle) and must be stringently regulated lest those with power use it for their own desires and not pro bono publico as they ought.

edit: updated this instead of adding a new reply. Mea culpa. Took advantage to correct spelling of Mr Kant's first name and remove an unnecessary comma from the third paragraph of the second reply.